This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].
|
|
Supreme Court
By Damon Root
.....Federal law prohibits the act of encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for private financial gain. Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case, United States v. Hansen, which asks whether that law should be struck down as an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of speech.
The law deserves to die on First Amendment grounds. As the Rutherford Institute and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression observe in an amicus brief they filed in the case, "expressing disagreement with laws through advocacy of their violation…is part of a deeply rooted American tradition." That tradition includes both the abolitionists who urged defiance of proslavery statutes in the 19th century and the civil rights activists who championed nonviolent resistance to Jim Crow in the 20th century. "Criminalizing mere encouragement of unlawful conduct," the brief points out, "would chill speech essential to movements advocating political and social change."
|
|
The Courts
By Ken Palmer
.....A property management company is suing the city of East Lansing, asking a judge to strike down an ordinance requiring landlords to tell tenants how and where to register to vote.
The suit, filed Thursday on behalf of Hagan Realty Inc. by the Thomas More Society, claims the city is violating landlords' First Amendment rights by forcing them to provide voter application forms and other information to new tenants.
"Where East Lansing's interest is to disseminate an ideology or policy relating to voting, no matter how acceptable to some, those interests cannot outweigh the First Amendment right to avoid being the courier of the government's message," said the suit filed in U.S. District Court.
|
|
Congress
By David McGarry
.....The House of Representative last week passed a bill to protect online speech from federal officials. House Republicans drafted the proposal largely in response to reporting that revealed federal employees—often in law enforcement or public-health agencies—have asked social media platforms to moderate users' legally protected speech...
The bill's primary fault lies in its definitions. It defines "censorship" as "influencing or coercing…for…the removal or suppression of lawful [online] speech"; "the addition of any disclaimer, information, or other alert to lawful [online] speech"; or "the removal or restriction of access of any person or entity on an interactive computer service generally available to the public."
This expansive language would seemingly extend past the attempts to influence social-media content moderation outlined in the Twitter Files. "The bill applies to requests that authors remove their own interactive computer service posts, or add corrections to those posts, and not just to requests that the computer services do that to their users' posts," Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, tells Reason. What's more, "The bill applies to requests that, say, newspaper writers add corrections to their posts online…and not just to requests that the computer services block or delete users' posts," he adds.
|
|
Free Expression
By Fergus Hodgson
.....The growing urge to use censorship to promote or quash a particular viewpoint has enticed members of both parties to wield the levers of power, requiring both electoral accountability from the public as well as judicial oversight. As more businesses feel compelled to adopt political initiatives and positions, epitomized by ESG ratings, politicians and regulators are attempting to exert more influence over them.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, for example, has punished the Walt Disney Company for opposing his state’s so-called Don’t Say Gay law. On February 27, he revoked Disney World's self-governing status after more than 50 years. Rather than hand 25,000 acres to a local municipality with elected representation, DeSantis put Reedy Creek under state-level management. With his handpicked board already throwing its weight around, one can see why the Walt Disney Company quieted down and replaced the CEO that tussled with DeSantis.
For the First Amendment to be meaningful, it must protect speech that offends or causes discomfort. Unfortunately, that tends to be forgotten when it contravenes populist and interventionist sentiments, especially when the speech in question comes from businesses through advertisements or executive statements.
|
|
Candidates and Campaigns
By Pete Quist
.....As the last state-level campaign finance disclosures for 2021 and 2022 elections are collected, OpenSecrets projects state-level political committees raised a record $7.4 billion. Federal political spending reached $8.9 billion, pushing the total cost of state and federal midterms to more than $16.4 billion, slightly down from OpenSecrets’ pre-election projection.
|
|
The States
By Nikita Biryukov
.....A Senate panel advanced a bill to overhaul New Jersey’s campaign finance system on Thursday, accepting some changes sought by good government groups while approving a provision that would effectively allow Gov. Phil Murphy to pick who leads the state agency that oversees and enforces New Jersey’s campaign finance laws.
The vote came hours after that agency’s director, Jeff Brindle, filed a lawsuit accusing Murphy and senior Murphy administration officials of conspiring to force his resignation over allegedly anti-gay remarks Brindle made. The lawsuit claims the legislation advanced Thursday is part of a “pattern and scheme to force by different artifices the resignation or firing of Jeffrey Brindle.”
Other critics were no less harsh, telling senators Thursday that the measure is an attempt to weaken pay-to-play laws, flood the state with campaign cash, and strip Brindle’s agency, the Election Law Enforcement Commission, of its independence…
The panel voted 7-3 in favor of the measure, dubbed the Elections Transparency Act, with all Republicans present voting no and Sen. Nilsa Cruz-Perez (D-Camden) abstaining. The bill would sharply increase contribution limits to candidates and political organizations, impose new disclosure rules on some independent expenditure groups, and impose a narrow statute of limitations on campaign finance violators, among numerous other changes.
|
|
By Tracey Tully
.....New Jersey’s top election-enforcement official sued Gov. Philip D. Murphy and three of Mr. Murphy’s top aides on Thursday for what the official said was their attempt to oust him in retaliation for comments he made ridiculing the state’s rules governing political fund-raising.
The election official, Jeffrey M. Brindle, claims in his lawsuit that Mr. Murphy, a Democrat, and the governor’s chief of staff, George Helmy, targeted him in a “concerted and joint action and conspiracy to extort and coerce” him...
Mr. Brindle says in his suit that the criticism of the email was merely a ruse to fire him because he is an outspoken critic of super PAC funds that shield the names of contributors and are often referred to as “dark money” accounts.
In the days before the November meeting, Mr. Brindle had written a satirical essay about the corrosive nature of campaigns financed by such untraceable funds. Mr. Murphy, who has considered running for president, benefits from a nonprofit political fund that does not disclose its donors.
“He doesn’t want someone in state government who is critical of dark money while he runs for president,” [Mr. Brindle's lawyer, Bruce] Afran said. Mr. Murphy has said that he will support President Biden if, as expected, he runs for re-election.
|
|
.....In response to three events featuring transphobic speakers scheduled to occur on the University of Pittsburgh’s campus, Pennsylvania House LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus co-chairs state Reps. Jessica Benham, D-Allegheny, and Malcolm Kenyatta, D-Phila., are condemning the university and calling for the events to be cancelled.
“I am shocked, appalled and outraged that an institution as prestigious as the University of Pittsburgh is allowing these events to occur on their property and bolstering these hateful individuals,” Benham said. “This is not a free speech issue. Hate speech is not protected speech. This is about the safety of transgender students and recognizing that transgender people exist..."
|
|
By Brently Kopopoulous
.....The city council in Burlington, Vermont is furious with some local residents posting so-called "transphobic stickers" around town...
...[S]tickering is common in Burlington, and there are plenty of political messages, but [a resolution passed Monday night] exclusively targets conservative stickers challenging gender ideology by calling them hate speech…
The resolution proclaims “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city council supports the continuation of tracking all transphobic and other hate speech in an annually published report available to the public to ensure the ongoing commitment to decreasing the amount of hate speech in our City.” This suggests the city government will be tracking stickers or other public protests that they don’t like, and publishing details to intimidate protesters.
The next line indicates the city is encouraging the state legislature to look at ways to extend existing protections to punish offenders for “hate motivated targeted crimes.” The final line outright says they’re going to attempt to change the laws so they can specifically punish “graffiti that spreads hateful and harmful messages.”
|
|
Read an article you think we would be interested in? Send it to Tiffany Donnelly at [email protected]. For email filters, the subject of this email will always begin with "Institute for Free Speech Media Update."
|
|
The Institute for Free Speech is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that promotes and defends the First Amendment rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government. Please support the Institute's mission by clicking here. For further information, visit www.ifs.org.
|
|
Follow the Institute for Free Speech |
|
|
|
|
|
|
